Helloooo? Accuracy? Truth? Does that matter here?
Does accuracy matter to you? Or is it actually undesirable to you in some cases? --PF Fox 15:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Accuracy is our raison d'etre. It's the sum and substance of what we do here.--Aschlafly 15:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- PF Fox, accuracy and truth is the stated purpose here. It is also a matter of constant debate among the editors here. There is a vital and vigorous debate ongoing, and you may wish to join it in a productive manner.PalMD 15:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Please show me where the fact that Captain John Smith left Virginia forever in 1609 is a "matter of debate." And if you can't do that, please explain how, given that he left in 1609, he could have effected this transformation of Jamestown into a free market society AFTER the supposedly "socialist" era you cite that is supposed to have lasted until 1611. --PF Fox 15:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Believe me, I have HUGE problems with the site. I'm just letting you know that some people with fewer idiologic motivations have decided to stick around and at least attempt to inject some accuracy here. You won't convince anyone here by full frontal attack (or even full frontal nudity). If you wish to improve accuracy, start editing in areas where you are knowledgeable, and make sure you can back up what you say, because the idiologues will put up a fight. Bon chance...er..good luck.PalMD 15:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT) Oh, and Richard, does this at least give me a chance of being re-blacklisted?
See Talk: BBC for a Britsh response to your comments
- I just responded there. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The great flood
You deleted my "Liberal propaganda" statement, and am most displeased. I will therefore prove that statement put there is incorrect. As you know, this site claims in differences to Wikipedia, "7. We allow original, properly labelled works, while Wikipedia does not."
Your "supported Conservative fact" claims "Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood." and is backed up by a total of ..."1" source.
If we are to look at bog bodies, the preserved remains of Neolithic humans found in bogs across the Europe, we see they date back to thousands of years before 3000 B.C. I am no expert in bogs, but they tend not to survive global floods very well, nor anything in them. Unlike your statement, I simple look on Google will bring back 1,070,000 sites which claim that bog bodies have been found before 3000 B.C, including BBC, National Geographic, University of Texas, The British museum, the National museum of Ireland, archeology.com, the university of Bradford, Manchester and Oxford (which was ranked by Times as the 3rd best university in the World).
Assuming that all these people know more than you and they are correct, that creates a tricky dilemma.
1). The Great flood never happened or 2). It did not happen at 3000 B.C.
Therefore, my original work proves that statement to be incorrect, and by keeping it there is a clear ... (dum-dum-d-dum) "Untruth". You will not mind then now if I remove these inaccurate remark for the better and neutrality of Conservapedia. --Ben 16:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good sourcing Ben! Great job.-AmesGyo! 17:00, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to suggest to everyone that disputes be posted on this page http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Panel/Submit rather than on this page whenever possible, so as to keep this page easier for communication. This resource exists solely for conflict resolution, and I see nobody's used it yet. MountainDew 17:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, we know Andy. We don't know our Shadow Council. Besides, the Panel page reads "It is designed to resolve major conflicts that come up on the site." (emphasis not mine). Many issues on this page hardly classify as "major", I think (not that there are guidelines that actually say what "major" is...). But there should be a more streamlined process, I agree there. CP:Abuse goes in the right direction, but it clearly doesn't covery everything that appears on Andy's Talk page. --Sid 3050 17:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I was hoping that at the very least the people upset about Richard's list might go there instead of filling this page, especially because there are only two or three people who are engaging in most of the debate here. MountainDew 17:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Maybe you can let Andy speak for himself. --Huey gunna getcha 17:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Andy hasn't said anything. At all. So I'm suggesting that perhaps you would be more likely to find a response there. MountainDew 17:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Richard's list isn't so much a major issue than a page to look at for a laugh or whatever. I think the point is that this "Panel" is ever so slightly random and has a slight Dystopian feel about it. It doesn't help that apparently its made up of a bunch of school kids. I mean, this site is supposed to be trustworthy! Alas, BST means I am long sleeping before the interesting debates occur! MatteeNeutra 17:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- BST? What's that? -AmesGyo! 17:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- British Summer Time. I'm from the UK so I think I'm 5 hours ahead of you guys in the States! Not just in time either! (ho ho ho...So maybe that didn't really deserve a chuckle!) It is rather annoying that as soon as most users come online from the States I have to depart but an early morning awaits me! Have fun ya'll! MatteeNeutra 17:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
We've Been Had
The way I see it, it's for Andy's mental health. It was like a million lines long: he already has so much to read, I don't want him to feel like he has to go through it all. It's still referenced.-AmesGyo! 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Besides, the move allowed us to insert rough breaks for headlines AND gave us another discussion space. --Sid 3050 21:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Is there a proper site-wide discussion page? (akin to Wikipedia's Village Pump, or maybe the Admin noticeboards or something like that?) User talk:Aschlafly here is probably inevitably overrun with random and sometimes trivial complaints just like Wikipedia's User talk:Jimbo Wales, but it might be nice to at least have a box at the top of this page that says "if your issue may need wider community input, it may get a faster response if the question is posted at discussion page X". --Interiot 21:09, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- That's a very Liberal attitude, assuming you, like the government, knows better, and you act to "protect" someones page. Would you like it if I decided something on your talk page didn't belong there, and re-directed it, removed it? I rather think you would be hugely p___d. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Uh... seriously now, chill out a bit. The discussion changed focus a few times, touched a few important issue and ended up in a discussion about site-wide politics. Moving it away from a User Talk page was the smartest choice. Andy's private talk page is not the right place to discuss site issues of such a dimension. And there is a link that points to it. No harm done. If it had stayed here, it would rot in an archive in a day or two. --Sid 3050 21:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Understand I am not questioning the good intentions, merely standing up for a user's right to decide themself, what does or doesn't belong on their page. Andy is around, and if he thought it needed moving, being a big boy, that should have been his choice, no? --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Let me ask that the other way 'round then: There have been times when I wanted to talk to someone competent, and didn't necessarily want to bug Aschlafly, since he gets that enough. However, it seems like most of the important people hang out here, and people seem to use this page as a stand-in for the Village Pump or admin noticeboard. But I was wondering (for myself, at least) whether there was someplace more appropriate that the various admins/experienced people hang out, other than this page. I guess there's [.[Conservapedia Talk]], but it doesn't seem like a viable alternative to this page. --Interiot 21:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
If you have been reading this page, I have suggested that, at least for Sysops, for several days, and a dozen posts, Interiot. I think Dew's idea about posting it here was to alert Andy ASAP, nothing more. Regular users have the abuse page, and what the guy did is certainly abuse, of one kind or another, I think. Be that as it may, I simply reject anyone making decisions for another user about what is on their talk page, not just things Andy. And, moved from here, the debate has dwindled, eh? Perhaps that was the intent, rather than not clogging Andy's page......--~ TerryK MyTalk 22:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Terry, let's face it, you just want another chance to poke at me, because I'm all pro-Richard, which is fine. But honestly, if you'll note, the link that I left to Andy says explicitly what it is, and it had been on his page for hours before it was moved. Move it back if you want, but don't you have better things to do? I did that to give us all a sandbox to play in that Andy wouldn't have to oversee, nothing more. -AmesGyo! 22:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Richard's Sysop status
At the very least, should we revisit Richard's sysop status in light of what happend? MountainDew 21:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Richard is leaving. Karajou 21:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- By choice? --Mtur 21:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, he's unblocked himself about ten times so far... so I hope so. MountainDew 21:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- He had his SYSOP removed, and promptly got booted out the door. Karajou 22:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
He's still on this list: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop MountainDew 22:09, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- One would hope he's been booted! I got tired of blocking him. Maybe that policy needs to be thought through a bit more, since real vandilism by a Sysop might need to be quashed a bit faster than waiting for some Bureaucrat to come around. I would suggest the ability of any Sysop to be able to block another, say for 8 hours....in case of emergency. As Andy always says, block now, and sort it out later...no loss if a person is restored, other than their inability to edit stuff for a few hours. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you're not seeing the big picture. This is a website that people want to improve. Then along comes someone who attempts to destroy that. You're seeing edits; I'm seeing intentions, and don't all liberals scream about being judged for their intentions? Karajou 22:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Improvement comes through many methods. For some, that is adding factual material. For others, it involves making the way things work run smoothly. Just as with teaching a child there are two ways of getting something done. You can say "don't cross the street if the light is red" or "cross the street only when the light is green". Does a site that grants sysop permissions based on a small example of ideological edits one that needs improvement? It is possible to write about how one should only grant access to people who are worthy of it. It is also possible to say "don't give access based on ideology only." In this case, the latter has been well demonstrated and I suspect that Conservapedia will learn and grow from this - an improvement. In the mean time, I am still waiting for a definition of what "real vandilism by a Sysop." I suspect that there are other examples that are out there now that are just as egregious - the only difference being that the sysop believes what is being written. --Mtur 22:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
"Richard" has been de-Sysoped. "Richard" is Andrew C. Oliver, and he has revealed his true scheme here.
It is not my approach to criticize people who are misguided in attempting to harm this site. We welcome an apology from Mr. Oliver, if not here then on his own blog. Several have apologized in the past, and I hope Mr. Oliver does likewise. But that, of course, is up to him.--Aschlafly 22:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well said. " He that has all hearts in his hand, can make a man's enemies to be at peace with him." --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't "Oliver" some Dicken's kid who wanted more? Karajou 23:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)